Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Yeah, but the fanatics don't care about that, all they care is someone drew a picture and they'll go off the deep end like they have done in the past. I think someone was killed last time a publication like that had a caricature of Mohammad.

The ones proding the fanatics aren't really all that fanatic themselves in comparison(Hell most don't even want to step on the battlefield nor would they do hae the things they expect their followers to do). It's just so easy to have power and keep it if you have fanatics believing everything you say since they'll kill and die if you tell them to.

the protest against American goes beyond the movie clip. The root cause goes way back (several centuries). I know some poster around here like to say people need to get over the past. But well, as i said before it is easier said then done.

Yes, and if they were simply displaying anti=American sentiment (perfectly understandable considering Western interference in the Middle East during the modern age), I'd probably sympathize more. Instead they're childishly defending their 'prophet'. "Don't mess with Muslims" I saw on one sign... Yeah, I think they should get over it...

Pakistani officials say they have opened an investigation into a businessman who has been accused of blasphemy after refusing to join protests over an anti-Islam video and allegedly trying to convince others also not to take part.

Some people like to label the fanatics and their hitch-hikers as the source of the problem, but are they really ? Or are they simply symtomps of the bigger multi-dimensional problems reflective of the preceding historical process ? Because the later seems more likely to be the gate that can lead us to the answer behind how much of a confused insecure dork Islamic world has generally become.

NATO halts work with Afghan allies to stem insider attackshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88H0BL20120918
There's a moment when one should acknoledge a failure, than his objective was unrealistic, than each new lost is a testimony of the failure to learn the leason of the previous ones.
This moment happened years ago. And we are still going the same way as if nothing happened.

Former CIA Chief: Obama’s War on Terror Same as Bush’s, But With More Killing:

"President Barack Obama has closely followed the policy of his predecessor,
President George W. Bush, when it comes to tactics used in the “war on terror” —
from rendition, targeted killings, state secrets, Guantanamo Bay to domestic
spying, according to Michael Hayden, Bush’s former director of the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.

“But let me repeat my hypothesis: Despite the frequent drama at the political
level, America and Americans have found a comfortable center line in what it is
they want their government to do and what it is they accept their government
doing. It is that practical consensus that has fostered such powerful continuity
between two vastly different presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
when it comes, when it comes to this conflict,” Hayden said Friday while speaking
at the University of Michigan."

"“And so, we’ve seen all of these continuities between two very different human
beings, President Bush and President Obama. We are at war, targeted killings have
continued, in fact, if you look at the statistics, targeted killings have increased under
Obama.”

He said that was the case because, in one differing path between the two
presidents, Obama in 2009 closed CIA “black sites” and ratcheted down on torturing
detainees. But instead of capturing so-called “enemy combatants,” President
Obama kills them instead, Hayden said."

Proves that this former CIA chief wasn't fit for his post at his time. Honestly, how can you develop that hypothesis from the facts and not thinking about the drone killings being a rather new war strategy that wasn't fully developed under Bush and hence could not result in that many targeted killings (most of them within Pakistan's borders). It has nothing to do with longer or shorter lists, or the willingness of both presidents to either kill or detain the "enemy combatants". In the case of drone attacks there is only the kill option. The other quasi-option is to let them go free.

So, since it is hard to capture the "enemy combatants" using drones the reference to Guantanamo is rather irrelevant. And he should know, since typically the CIA is involved in those targeted killings.
If the CIA has the similar brain powered people in their target selection/aquisition ranks... - then how many actual "enemy combatants" are among the killed?

When Obama said that he didn't like the policy of detention that was used under the Bush Administration, WHERE did he say that he was opposed to the policy of assassinating terrorists? It's the same thing about Obama getting out of Iraq, but people being surprised when he figured the US should stay around in Afghanistan.

The Right has spent SOOO much mental energy trying to paint Obama as being a "pussy", that even people on the left started to believe, nay, hope for it.

All you can say about Obama is that he's probably more pragmatic about Bush, and less interested in spectacles of trials and some such.

The reversal came after intense opposition to the plan from business groups and communities that host the country’s nuclear power plants, which have warned that abandoning nuclear power will damage Japan’s economy.

The cabinet of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda instead endorsed a vague promise to “engage in debate with local governments and international society and to gain public understanding” in deciding Japan’s economic future in the wake of the 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima.

The cabinet on Wednesday said only that it would “take into consideration” the goal to eliminate nuclear power by 2040, laid down in a policy document released last week.